Energy Conservation Standards Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-94-220-IF]

RIN 1904-AA61; RIN 1904-AA70

Energy Conservation Standards Program for Consumer Products: Test

Procedures for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice reopening comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 28, 1994, the Department of Energy (Department or

DOE) published an interim final rule and a proposed rule regarding

energy conservation test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent

lamps. Based on the public responses, the Department is considering

certain revisions of the interim final rule and proposed rule and seeks

public comment on options it is considering. The options involve the

following topics: determining the wattage of a fluorescent lamp for

purposes deciding whether the energy conservation standards and test

procedures apply to it; the confidence limit, ``derating factor'' and

statistical test used in the test procedure sampling plan; definition

of colored lamps; determining the rated voltage or rated voltage range

of an incandescent lamp for purposes of deciding whether the energy

conservation standards and test procedures apply to it; defining rated

voltage for testing incandescent lamps; and defining the bulb shapes

for elliptical reflector (ER) and bulged reflector (BR) incandescent

lamps.

DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by

the Department by April 15, 1996. The Department requests 10 copies of

the written comments and, if possible, a computer disk. (The Department

uses WordPerfect.)

There will be a public meeting to gather input on these issues in

Washington, D.C., on March 5, 1996. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m.

and will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building,

Room 2E-069, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

ADDRESSES: Written comments are to be submitted to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Ms. Sandy

Beall, ``Energy Conservation Standards Program for Fluorescent and

Incandescent Lamps, Docket No. EE-RM-94-220-IF,'' EE-431, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone: (202) 586-7574; Telefax: (202) 586-4617.

Copies of the transcript of the July 19, 1995 lamp workshop and of

the public comments on the interim final rule may be read at the

Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-6020,

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

[[Page 7432]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence L. Logee, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-431, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585-0121,

(202) 586-1689

Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General

Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-2928

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub.

L. 94-163, as amended (EPCA) or the Act, created the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles

(Program). The products currently subject to this Program include

certain fluorescent and incandescent lamps and medium based compact

fluorescent lamps. EPCA sets minimum energy conservation standards for

general service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps and

requires the Department to develop test procedures.

2. Background

On September 28, 1994, the Department published an interim final

rule establishing test procedures for general service fluorescent and

incandescent lamps and for medium based compact fluorescent lamps, 59

FR 49468, and a Notice of Proposed Rule for definitions of rough and

vibration service incandescent reflector lamps and colored fluorescent

and incandescent lamps, 59 FR 49478. In addition DOE held a hearing on

the proposed rule on November 15, 1994 and a workshop on these issues

on July 19, 1995. The Department received many comments on the interim

final rule and on the proposed rule including comments from

manufacturers, a national trade association, a professional society, a

utility, and a Federal agency. The comments included requests that the

Department: (1) modify its test procedure sampling plan to change the

confidence limit, ``derating factor,'' and statistical test used to

determine compliance of certain lamps with the energy conservation

standards; (2) permit testing and compliance for incandescent lamps at

a lamp's design voltage, and expand the voltage range from the

statutory requirement of 115 through 130 volts to 100 through 150

volts; (3) define the exemption for the bulged reflector (BR) and

elliptical reflector (ER) incandescent reflector lamp by reference to

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C79.1-1994; (4)

determine that a new product coming on the market, a fluorescent lamp

rated at 25 watts, which is below the 28 watt threshold for coverage

under EPCA, is actually a 40 watt fluorescent that is covered by the

statutory standards and test procedures; and (5) revise its proposed

definition of colored fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

In response to the foregoing suggestions, the Department is

considering various options to alter the Interim Final and Proposed

Rules. Because the issues raised by these options were not expressly

considered in either the preamble to the Interim Final or Proposed

Rules, the Department is now seeking comment from interested parties on

these options. In particular, the Department seeks any new factual

information and data that will assist it in addressing these issues.

3. Discussion

a. Revision of the Sampling Plan. DOE's Energy Conservation Program

for Consumer Products has been developed and refined since its

inception in 1978. Compliance with energy efficiency standards has been

assured in part by having each manufacturer certify that its covered

products comply with the applicable energy efficiency standard. The

certification must be based on tests of the product in accordance with

test procedures prescribed by DOE.

In promulgating test procedures applicable to certification, one of

the major goals has been to provide a statistically valid approach so

that there is a high probability that products which have been tested

and certified as being in compliance with the applicable efficiency

standards actually comply with those standards. Each DOE test procedure

incorporates a sampling plan, and that sampling plan is designed to

give reasonable assurance that the true mean performance of the product

being manufactured and sold meets or exceeds the DOE energy efficiency

standard.

DOE recognizes that units of a product may vary in energy

efficiency for a number of valid reasons, including differences in

component parts, production and testing. The risk to the public of

purchasing a non-complying product, the risk to manufacturers of

selling such a product, and the burdens of performing representative

testing, are reduced through the application of a statistically

meaningful sampling plan and basing the certification decision on the

mean energy performance of the sample units.

There are several critical elements of a sampling plan. One is the

selection of units for testing. Units must be representative of the

product, and be selected randomly from a batch. Sample size is also a

critical element of a sampling plan. The results yielded by energy

efficiency testing of a product, consisting of tests conducted on a

sample of units, will be increasingly more reliable as the size of the

test sample increases. This, however, increases the testing burden on

the manufacturers. Also, as the variability in performance increases

among individual tested units of a product, the reliability of the test

results decreases. As a result, DOE's test procedures require sampling

plans based on a confidence limit approach. This approach is designed

to minimize the manufacturers' testing burden while ensuring accurate

determination of compliance within a specified level of confidence.

The interim final rule prescribing test procedures for lamps

requires a minimum sample size of 20 units for each model, which must

be randomly selected during seven out of 12 months of production. The

rule further provides in essence that the lamp efficacy for a given

model of lamp shall be the average efficacy for the tested lamps of

that model, and ``shall be no greater than the lower of (i) the mean of

the sample or (ii) the lower 99 percent confidence limit of the true

mean divided by 0.99.'' DOE views the latter calculation as being a

one-sided confidence interval using the t-statistic, with the 0.99

divisor constituting a ``derating'' factor. The confidence limit would

be calculated using generally accepted methods found in statistics

textbooks, based on the sample mean and sample standard deviation.

DOE included the derating factor to take into account variability

in the efficiency of products due to many factors, including

manufacturing variability, variations in the material (e.g.,

phosphors), and testing errors, including reference lamp calibration

errors. Furthermore, this format (confidence limit divided by a

derating factor) is similar to the format required for other appliance

products for which DOE has authority to require testing.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has

proposed loosening the confidence interval to 95 percent, and changing

the derating factor to 0.97, which increases its derating effect. It

justifies this proposal on the basis of typical production variations

and measurement uncertainties, including calibration issues. NEMA

submitted estimates of

[[Page 7433]]

the magnitude of these variations and their effect on compliance

determinations. They estimated an uncertainty of 2 percent due to the

reference lamps used in the measurement process, with additional

variability among different laboratories.

NEMA has also proposed substituting the z-statistic procedure for

the t-statistic procedure. The z-statistic procedure is similar to the

t-statistic procedure, except that, for each model of a product, it

uses the standard deviation, , that applies to the entire

population of manufactured units for that model. That standard

deviation is assumed to be known from previous measurements. The t-

statistic procedure, by contrast, uses the standard deviation, s, of

the sample units tested. The z-test also replaces the factor t with

another factor z, both of which are found in standard tables.

The effect of going to a 95 percent confidence limit will be to

make it slightly easier to demonstrate compliance, while also slightly

increasing the chance that a noncompliant product will be judged to be

in compliance. In other words, when testing demonstrates compliance at

the 95 percent confidence level, there would be a one in twenty chance

that a non-tested unit of the product may not meet the standards

instead of a one in one hundred chance under the procedure promulgated

by the interim final rule.

The effect of using the z procedure instead of the t procedure will

be to produce lower confidence limit values which are more favorable to

the manufacturers, because the value of the z factor from the tables is

less than the value of the t factor, unless the number of sample units,

n, is very large. However, the z procedure is more representative than

the t procedure because the standard deviation in the z method is

determined from a larger population than the standard deviation in the

t method. Use of the z procedure requires an accurate measurement of

the population standard deviation for each model. Accurate measurement

would appear to require, for example, prior tests of a large number of

units of that model selected at random, conduct of the prior testing in

accredited laboratories, and prior testing conducted under conditions

and using test procedures that are comparable to current conditions and

procedures.

The Department is considering the option of permitting a

manufacturer to use the ``z'' statistic as an alternative to the ``t''

statistic, for tests of any product for which the following criteria

are met: (1) the standard deviation used in the test procedure was

derived from a minimum sample of 60 or more randomly selected lamps of

the same basic model; (2) the statistical data was measured by

accredited laboratories; (3) the prior testing was conducted under

conditions and using test procedures comparable to current conditions

and procedures. When these criteria are not met, a manufacturer would

be required to use the ``t-statistic.'' The Department specifically

seeks input on whether lamp manufacturers can derive standard

deviations for their products from historic test experience. The

Department is seeking comment on this approach or other possible uses

of the ``z'' statistic. The Department is also considering, and seeks

comments on, modification of the derating factor and confidence

interval, as suggested by NEMA.

b. Definition of Rated Voltage, Determination of Test Voltage and

Determination of Voltage Range. When the Department considered test

procedures for incandescent lamps in the interim final rule, it noted

that neither the definition of incandescent lamp in Section 321(30)(C)

of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), nor Illumination Engineering Society

LM-20, ``Approved Method for Photometric Testing of Reflector-Type

Lamps'' defined the test voltage. Therefore, in the interim final rule,

the Department requires testing of all incandescent lamps at 120 volts

to be consistent with the statutory requirements for labeling. 10 CFR

Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, Section 4.2.1.

In its comments, NEMA requested that the Department allow testing

of incandescent lamps at their design voltage. Otherwise, NEMA claimed

that certain 125 and 130 volt lamps would be banned from the market by

failing to meet the standards if tested at 120 volts. The industry and

NEMA also claim that 125 and 130 volt lamps serve two market niches:

regions in the country where power line voltage is greater than the

nominal 120 volts and applications requiring long life lamps.

Manufacturers claim that they would be forced to sell lamps with

decidedly shorter lives than the 125 and 130 volt lamps currently in

the marketplace if DOE requires compliance with the standards at 120

volts.

In response to queries by NIST, Philips proposed that the

Department consider requiring testing of incandescent lamps at the

rated voltage marked on the lamp. Furthermore, when a lamp is marked

with a voltage range, Philips proposed that the rated voltage should be

taken as the mean of the voltage range. This wording is based on text

taken from the International Electrochemical Commission Standard 432-1.

The Department believes that requiring compliance for incandescent

lamps at 120 volts will reduce lamp life for some consumers and may

also remove most 125 and 130 volt lamps from the marketplace. However,

none of the manufacturers define what is meant by design voltage.

Therefore, since the statute uses rated voltage, the Department is

considering adopting the definition of rated voltage from the Institute

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard Dictionary of Terms

which defines rated voltage as ``the voltage to which operating and

performance characteristics are referred.'' Furthermore, the Department

is considering a requirement to test incandescent lamps at the rated

voltage, as marked on the lamp, or at the mean of rated voltage range,

as marked on the lamp. This approach would provide for testing

incandescent lamps at a known reference voltage for certification to

the energy efficiency standards while agreeing with the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. The Department is also

considering the option of requiring that lamps not marked with a

voltage will be tested at 120 volts.

With respect to the issue of ``rated voltage range'' the definition

of ``incandescent reflector lamp'' in the Act, refers to a ``rated

voltage or rated voltage range at least partially within 115 to 130

volts.'' Section 321(30)(C)(ii), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii). NEMA

recommended expansion of the voltage range in the statute to 100 to 150

volts, asserting that the statutory limit could unintentionally allow

evasion of the standards requirements for certain products. Under the

language in the statute, for example, a product could be rated at 131

volts, thereby removing it from the standard. Yet this product would

perform acceptably in a 130 volt environment and could be sold for such

applications.

The interim final rule incorporates the statutory definition of

incandescent lamp including the voltage range. The Department will

continue to use this definition. The Department notes that only one

manufacturer currently markets lamps with design voltages greater than

130 volts. However, in response to queries by NIST, several

manufacturers agreed that the nominal tolerance for incandescent lamp

voltage is 10 percent. The Department believes that the

statutory range of 115 to 130 volts may also be subject to this

tolerance. Therefore, the Department is considering the option of

treating lamps with voltages greater than 103.5 volts

[[Page 7434]]

and less than 143.0 volts as being ``at least partially within a rated

voltage range of 115 to 130 volts,'' and subject to the energy

efficiency standards.

The Department is seeking comments on the acceptability and

workability of these options for rated voltage, test voltage and rated

voltage range. Alternative proposals are welcome but the Department

requests that these proposals be supported by references to existing or

draft industry standards or that the proposals be supported by data.

c. ER and BR Reflector Lamp Definitions. The Act contains

exemptions for several types of incandescent reflector lamps including

those for ER (elliptical reflector) and BR (bulged reflector) bulb

shapes. Section 321(30)(C)(ii), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii). However,

these lamps are not defined in the statute or the interim final rule

and DOE is concerned that the exemption may be abused without a clear

definition of what constitutes an ER or BR bulb.

One commenter provided copies of ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 which

contain descriptions of the ER and BR bulb shapes. Another commented

that if the ANSI definition was different than what some manufacturers

have been using, there would be tooling costs to conform the lamp

envelope to the new shape definition and DOE should provide time for

manufacturers to implement the new ANSI requirements. In its comments

to the workshop, NEMA claimed that there was a consensus to define ER

and BR lamps by reference to ANSI Standard C79.1-1994.

An Osram-Sylvania Inc. (OSI) comment claims that: (1) the BR lamp

is not marketed for recessed applications; (2) BR lamps are more

efficient than rough/vibration service R lamps; (3) the BR lamp is less

costly for the residential market than the halogen PAR lamp; (4) OSI

has introduced a 65 watt BR lamp which meets the efficiency standards;

and (5) the ANSI C79.1-1994 bulb shape standard is a result of the

mandatory ANSI 5-year revision cycle and it is fundamental to all lamp/

fixture interchangeability. The Department notes, however, that the

previous ANSI revision to the bulb shape standard was published in

1984.

During the workshop, the American Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE) commented that this exemption was placed in the statute

to protect one small manufacturer and that the drafters of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) believed that these products were not sold

in large quantities and were expected to disappear from the market.

Furthermore, ACEEE comments suggested that the exemption was meant to

apply to lamps that are rated with lower wattage than their reflector

(R) or parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) counterparts. In its

written comments, ACEEE requested that DOE define ER and BR lamps in a

way that would limit exemptions for these lamps as originally intended

in EPACT.

The Department believes the definitions of ER and BR bulb shapes in

ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 (Figure 1 on page 7) are new definitions of

the ER and BR bulb shapes because earlier versions of ANSI Standard

C79.1 did not include definitions for either ER or BR bulb shapes in

their current form. ANSI C79.1-1984 discusses the bulged (B) and

elliptical (E) shape designations as basic bulb shapes of general

service incandescent lamps. The ``RE'' elliptical reflector shape in

the 1994 ANSI C79.1 standard could be described as cutting off the top

half of the basic ``E'' bulb shape in the 1984 document since the

elliptical portion of the ``E'' bulb forms that part of the ``RE'' bulb

below the major axis or lens of the reflector bulb. However, the bulged

reflector bulb would represent a greatly diminished ``B'' shaped bulb

with a reflector bulb connected to the top of this small ``B'' shaped

bulb. For these reasons, the Department believes the 1994 ANSI document

represents a major modification of elliptical and bulged bulbs from the

1984 document.

ER and BR reflector bulb shapes typically have a long neck, a

characteristic which is not addressed in ANSI C79.1. This is presumably

to extend the lens closer to the end of recessed ceiling fixtures in

the ER bulb. Therefore, the Department believes the ANSI C79.1-1994

definitions of the ER and BR bulb shapes are subject to interpretation,

and questions whether these definitions agree with the commonly

understood bulb shapes being manufactured and which were contemplated

by exclusion of ER and BR bulbs from EPCA coverage.

Although the Department believes the ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 does

not fully prescribe the ER and BR bulb shapes, the Department is

considering adopting ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 as part of the definition

of an ER or BR bulb shape, subject to additional criteria, to capture

the characteristics of ER and BR bulbs in the marketplace at the time

the exemptions were established. One criterion being considered is a

longer neck than an R or PAR lamp with either a specified dimension or

a dimension stated as a comparison, such as 25 percent longer than

similar wattage R or PAR lamps. An additional criterion under

consideration for the BR lamp is to require that the bulged shape must

be reflectively coated and large enough to redirect light emitted by

the filament to the side and rear of the lamp toward the lens. The

Department is also considering a requirement for a reduced wattage

filament for both ER and BR lamps. The Department is seeking comment on

whether to specify a certain wattage reduction or to state this

reduction as a percentage comparison to standard R or PAR lamps.

The Department invites comments on the definitions for ER and BR

lamps it is considering. The Department also requests copies of catalog

listings and other data to help it determine the extent of reduced

wattage ER and BR lamps offered in the market.

d. Determination of Rated Wattage for a Fluorescent Lamp. EPCA sets

standards for fluorescent lamps 48 inches long with rated wattages of

28 watts or more, 96 inches long with rated wattages of 52 watts or

more, and 2 foot U-tube lamps with rated wattages of 28 watts or more.

Sections 321(30)(A) and 325(i)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A) and

6295(i)(1). The standard levels have the effect of prohibiting the

sale, after October 31, 1995, of certain lamps previously on the

market, including 4-foot, 40 watt cool white fluorescent lamps.

The 4-foot, 40 watt cool white fluorescent lamp consumes 40 watts

of power when used with a conventional high power factor ballast. High

power factor ballasts are used in over 85 percent of the fluorescent

fixtures using four foot lamps. Such high power factor ballasts are

typically used in commercial applications. If a 40-watt cool white lamp

is used with the type of low power factor ballast generally used in

residential applications, the lamp will consume about 25 watts, which

is below the 28 watt threshold that defines the lower limit of coverage

in the standards.

Neither the statute nor DOE's existing regulations specify the type

of ballast to be used in determining the rated wattage of lamps. In the

absence of a specification, some have argued that 4-foot lamps could

have their rated wattage determined using a low power factor ballast

and if, using this testing method, the rated wattage was less than 28

watts, the lamp would be exempt from the standard.

DOE believes that it is unreasonable to apply this statute so as to

permit the continued manufacture and sale of lamps that when used with

the most common types of ballasts (i.e., high power factor) would

consume 28 or more watts, but fail to meet the

[[Page 7435]]

standards prescribed by the statute. In an attempt to address this

concern, DOE sent a letter on August 30, 1995, to lamp manufacturers

indicating that it would consider any lamp that was electrically the

same as the 40-watt cool white lamp to be subject to the same statutory

standards. However, manufacturers have since begun to introduce, or

indicated that they plan to introduce, slight variations on the 40-watt

cool white lamp that would be rated at 25 watts based on use of low

power factor ballasts. Despite these modifications, the lamps being

marketed or developed would still perform like 40-watt cool white lamps

when used in high power factor ballasts.

The Department believes that Congress intended the rated wattage of

fluorescent lamps, for purposes of defining the universe of lamps

covered by the standards, to be determined by using a high power factor

ballast. The wattages included in the table that now appears in section

325(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act appear to assume the

use of high power factor ballasts. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i). In addition, when

Congress had previously set efficiency standards for ballasts, those

standards were only applied to high power factor ballasts.

The Department is now considering a requirement that the rated

wattage of a fluorescent lamp, for purposes of determining coverage by

the standards, is the measured wattage when the lamp is used with a

high power factor ballast. The Department is soliciting public comment

on the possibility of requiring the use of high power factor ballasts

in determining the rated wattage of fluorescent lamps. Before making a

final determination on this matter, the Department also intends to

consider other possible means to achieve comparable objectives.

For example, the Department is considering the approach used in the

Canadian lamp regulations issued in the November 29, 1995 Canada

Gazette, Part II, Volume 129, No. 24, pg 3073. Under this possible

approach, the Department would add an additional phrase to the

definition for general service fluorescent lamp specifying that,

``General service fluorescent lamp means any fluorescent lamp that is a

physical and electrical equivalent of a lamp described in paragraph

(a), (b), (c), or (d).'' However, the Department believes that this

approach may suffer the same weakness as DOE's attempt to elaborate on

the definition of basic model discussed in the DOE letter of August 30,

1995.

The Department also will consider determining whether a particular

lamp is covered by the standards by requiring that its measured wattage

be compared to the measured wattage of a similar covered lamp using the

same ballast. The wattage of the covered lamp divided by the wattage of

the lamp in question would be multiplied by the wattage marked on the

covered lamp to determine the rated wattage of the lamp in question.

However, this approach may not work for new products.

The Department is concerned, however, that if it requires rated

wattage to be determined using a high power factor ballast,

manufacturers might be inhibited from producing certain products

designed and marketed for use exclusively with low power factor

ballasts. Even though there are now available a number of lamps that

can be safely used in low power factor ballasts, and which would be

unaffected by this proposal, the Department does not want to restrict

unnecessarily the choices that might be available to users of low power

factor ballasts in the future. For this reason, the Department is

soliciting public comment and proposals on how it might use its

discretionary regulatory authority or its authority to grant certain

waivers or exemptions to address this possible problem. Specifically,

DOE is interested in identifying specific technical features or

performance or other characteristics of lamps that would provide

reasonable assurance that such lamps would be used exclusively in low

power factor ballasts.

At least one manufacturer has indicated that it believes that a

substantially reduced lamp life (e.g., 6,000 hours compared to the

industry norm of 20,000 hours) should restrict the usage of such lamps

to low power factor ballasts in the residential sector. But DOE is

concerned that lamps with useful lives of 6,000 hours may still be

widely used with high power factor ballasts. DOE is also concerned that

accurately determining average lamp life can be difficult and time

consuming and questions the utility to consumers of a requirement that

may discourage manufacturers from increasing product life.

The Department recognizes that one of the motivations for

introducing modified 40 watt lamps is industry concern that residential

and other users of low power factor ballasts might use 34 watt lamps in

their fixtures, which would increase the risk of overheating and fires.

While consumers have a range of safe alternatives to the 34 watt lamp,

and 34 watt lamps are being labeled to warn consumers against their use

with low power factor ballasts, DOE believes that these industry

concerns may be valid. DOE solicits public comment on these concerns

and how DOE might best use its regulatory authorities to ensure

consumers are adequately protected.

Finally, in order to better assess these issues, the Department is

seeking more information on the size and characteristics of the market

for lamps used in low power factor ballasts.

e. Definition of Colored Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamp. In the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department defined colored

fluorescent and colored incandescent lamps because Sections

321(30)(B)(iii), 321(30)(C)(ii), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)(iii) and 42

U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii) of the Act contain exemptions for these lamps

without defining them. The Department is seeking definitions of colored

lamps which can be determined by measurement of certain

characteristics. Therefore, the Department proposed to define colored

incandescent and fluorescent lamps by using suitable minimum values of

the Color Rendering Index (CRI) or correlated color temperatures (CCT).

(59 FR 49478).

Several manufacturers suggested that the upper limit for CRI for

colored fluorescent lamps be increased to 40. Phillips Lighting states

that a CRI of 40 will prevent the exclusion of gold fluorescent lamps

which are used in printing applications. OSI also recommends that the

acceptable CRI for amber and red incandescent lamps be raised but DOE

believes that this is not necessary with the proposed revisions to the

colored incandescent lamp definition because these lamps have a low

CCT.

In its comments to the July 19, 1995 lamp workshop, Durotest

suggests that CCT limits for colored fluorescent lamps be less than

2,500 deg. K or greater than 6,600 deg. K or with a CRI less than 40.

For incandescent lamps, Durotest suggests that the CCT parameters

should be less than 2,500 deg. K or greater than 4,600 deg. K or CRI

less than 50. NEMA also suggests using the same CCT and CRI parameters

as Durotest. It asks DOE to clarify in the preamble that a lamp is

considered colored if its CCT falls outside the range above or if its

CRI falls below the values above.

The Department appreciates the industry suggestions for revised

limits on CCT and CRI. DOE's original proposal would have defined

certain green lamps as white lamps based on their CRI. This problem is

caused by the difficulty of choosing a reference lamp of equal CCT to

the lamp in question and because CRI was originally intended to

characterize non-colored lamps.

As a result of industry suggestions and comments, one option the

Department is considering is to revise

[[Page 7436]]

its proposed definition of a colored lamp by using a maximum value of

CRI or a suitable band of CCT. Therefore, the Department is considering

a definition of colored fluorescent lamp as a lamp with a CRI value

less than 40 or a color correlated temperature not above 2,500 deg. K

for red and yellow colors or not below 6,600 deg. K for blue and green

colors. The Department is also considering a definition of colored

incandescent lamp as a lamp with CRI values below 50 or a lamp color

correlated temperature either not above 2,500 deg. K for red and yellow

colors or not below 4,600 deg. K for blue and green colors. The

Department believes that the measurements required to determine if a

lamp is colored by the above definitions are minimal. The CRI is a

required measurement for fluorescent lamps and manufacturers would only

have to make a CRI measurement for lightly tinted incandescent lamps.

The color temperature is derived from spectroradiometric measurements

and this data already exists for most lamps.

However, at the July 19, 1995 lamp workshop, NEMA proposed an

alternative definition of colored lamps which depends on the excitation

purity of a colored source. Excitation purity is defined as the ratio

of two collinear distances (NC/ND) on the Commission Internationale de

L'eclairage (CIE) chromaticity diagram. NC is the distance between the

point representing the sample lamp and a specified reference point. ND

is the distance between the point locating the dominant wavelength of

the sample lamp and the specified reference point. NEMA suggests that a

value of excitation purity greater than 50 percent would be a

reasonable lower limiting value defining a colored lamp. NEMA claims

that a single definition will suffice for all colors. Plotting one

number on the x,y chromaticity diagram which shows the 50 percent

excitation purity area marked on it will quickly determine whether a

lamp is colored. Furthermore, NEMA requested that the Department not

finalize the colored lamp definition until they complete their

specification of chromaticity coordinate boundaries.

NEMA notes that the excitation purity method proposed will not

discriminate between clear and colored lamps with CCT's from slightly

above 2,856 deg.K and lower. This is an inherent drawback of the

chromaticity diagram and redefining the excitation purity limit will

not correct it. NEMA suggests that the Department define a colored

region around the black body locus on the chromaticity diagram as

white. The area within the 50 percent excitation purity area is called

pastel and lamps in this area must be marked for a specific application

to be called colored. Although the excitation purity method fits DOE's

criteria for a measurable colored lamp definition, the Department is

not inclined to adopt this method because it is complicated to describe

due to the use of three zones on the chromaticity diagram.

As a second option, the Department is considering a colored lamp

definition using x, y chromaticity coordinates which lie outside of the

area bounded by the following points: (0.285,0.332); (0.453,0.440);

(0.500,0.440); (0.500,0.382); (0.440,0.382); (0.285,0.264). These

boundaries are taken from CIE Publication No. 2.2, Colors of Light

Signals.

The Department believes that defining a colored lamp by using the

chromaticity coordinates above will satisfy manufacturers' concerns

that lamps of low color temperature but near the black body locus

should be considered white. Likewise, this method satisfies a DOE

concern that valid orange and red colored lamps on or near the black

body locus would not be considered colored.

Since an incandescent lamp creates light by heating a filament

``white hot,'' some lightly tinted incandescent lamps lie very near the

black body curve on the x-y chromaticity diagram. The Department

believes that the x-y chromaticity definition of colored lamps will

apply to nearly all colored lamps with a few significant exceptions.

Very lightly tinted incandescent lamps, such as jeweler's blue and

plant grow lamps, may not meet the colored lamp definitions as they are

currently proposed. NEMA recommends an exemption for colored

incandescent plant lamps because there is a filter in these lamps which

affects the yellow and green parts of the spectrum. NEMA also suggests

that DOE require manufacturers provide a generic description of a plant

lamp's features and require that these lamps be marketed and designated

for plant lighting applications. In addition to the above, GE Lighting

proposes to add that colored lamps are not suitable for general

lighting applications. Therefore, the Department is considering an

additional criteria in the definition of colored incandescent lamps

that would require application specific incandescent colored lamps to

be designated as such on the lamp and in marketing materials.

Additionally, Durotest has urged the Department to provide an

explicit exemption for neodymium lamps because they claim that the

color is doped directly into the glass bulb. Therefore, the Department

is considering specifying that incandescent lamps with lens filters

containing 5 percent or more neodymium are colored lamps. The neodymium

filter adjusts the light spectrum for reptile lighting applications.

4. Public Meeting Procedure

At the public meeting, DOE will seek discussion of the points

discussed in this notice. Should any party wish to raise any other

matter addressed in the Interim Final or Proposed Rules, they should so

notify DOE by February 29, 1996.

The meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. A

court reporter will be present to record the minutes of the meeting.

There shall be no discussion of proprietary information, costs or

prices, market shares, or other commercial matters regulated by

antitrust law. After the meeting and period for written statements, the

Department will consider the views presented in formulating a Final

Rule regarding fluorescent and incandescent lamp test procedures.

Issued in Washington, DC, February 22, 1996.

Brian T. Castelli,

Chief of Staff, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 96-4512 Filed 2-27-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P